ASHRAF Vs. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ-petitions involve a common question as to the rate of tax applicable to 'forklift' under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976, for short 'the Taxation Act'. The petitioners purchased 'forklift' for the purpose of their business of acting as Steamer Agents for various Shipping Companies at Cochin. According to them, 'forklift' is an equipment used basically for lifting goods for stacking at different heights. It has four wheels and is capable of moving with limited speed it cannot be and is not used for transporting goods from place to place and its use is confined to storage places like godowns. Therefore the petitioners took the view that 'forklift' purchased by them do not require registration under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which is applicable only in the case of Motor Vehicles. However, in view of compulsion from first respondent, petitioners registered their vehicles as required under the Act. The first respondent, Joint Regional Transport Officer, while granting registration made endorsement in the respective registration books that the petitioners are liable to pay tax at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per quarter apparently treating 'forklift' as a 'goods carriage vehicle'.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid endorsement, the petitioner in OP No. 11377 of 1991 filed an appeal before the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Ernakulam under S. 23 of the Taxation Act. The said appeal was disposed of by him as per Ext. P1 order finding that the vehicle in question is a non-transport vehicle which is wrongly classified as 'goods vehicle' by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Mattancherry. Therefore the Deputy Transport Commissioner directed the Joint RTO to revive the endorsement and realise the tax accordingly. After the above order of the Deputy Transport Commissioner the petitioner remitted the tax at the rate of Rs. 500/- per year. However when the petitioner's representative went to the office of the first respondent for payment of tax for the period commencing from 1-10-1991 the first respondent made an endorsement in the R. G. book directing the petitioner to pay motor vehicle tax at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per quarter applicable to goods vehicle from 1-7-1989 and at the rate of Rs. 1,250- per quarter from 1-4-1991 in the light of TC's clarification GV/ar/ Tourist tax/m/cab No. KCP 8693. Ext. P2 is the copy of the said endorsement made by the first respondent. On enquiry it was understood that the endorsement in the R. C. book as per Ext. P2 was made in view of Ext. P3 notification issued by the Ministry of Surface Transport (Transport Wing) dated 12-6-1989.

(3.) EXT. P1 is the order passed by the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Law), Central Zone II, Ernakulam, in the case of the petitioner in OP No. 11377 of 1991. Accepting the contention advanced by the owner of the vehicle, the Deputy Transport Commissioner observed thus: " But on thorough examination, it is understood that the vehicle in question is also a forklift, which wrongly classified goods vehicle by the Jt. RTO, Mattancherry. There cannot be any discrimination of similar vehicle in registration, as such the vehicle KCF 8693 is also a forklift and not a goods vehicle, tax realised in similar vehicles cannot be discriminated also. As such, tax is due only at the rate of non-transport vehicle. "